Darwin's Illusion

[Valjean]

Prove that or it is just a belief.

What does "just a belief" mean? Is there something more reliable than a belief?

Belief that the Earth's round, that germs cause disease and that grass is green are just beliefs, as well.

 

[Valjean]

Something extremely light would not heat up much.

Tidal effects on debris passing near to heavy bodies could tear up and separate debris.

Something extremely light would be incinerated in the atmosphere. It's only large meteors that ever reach the ground.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. It would still have to get rid of whatever kinetic energy it has, which would be proportional to mass, meaning the heating would be similar.

More likely to allow for survival would be a larger fragment where the heat might now conduct to the interior before hitting the Earth.

Of course then there would be the issue of the life getting out of the rock in time.



Only on something planet sized. Which is very unlikely.

Overall, transfer of life via meteor is very unlikely from outside of our solar system.

A tough problem. I think that the meteorites most likely to survive the trip would be iron meteorites. Very dense, very tough, very inhospitable to life:

If you wanted to get life to Earth it would be most likely on the order of a carbonaceous chondrite. They may also have been an early source of amino acids. It still do not see live naturally occurring on them. Of course both of these are in-system meteorites. It is high dubious that life would have formed in the short time between when they formed and when they became asteroids. They had to be part of a larger body.

And of course having life come from a meteorite would be just moving the time of abiogenesis back. Natural abiogenesis is still the most likely source of life by a longshot.

 

[cladking]

Not true. It would still have to get rid of whatever kinetic energy it has, which would be proportional to mass, meaning the heating would be similar.

I believe you are misthinking this.

On the very small scale and very long time frame everything is different. Chaos rules not the 'laws" of physics.

Large objects hitting the atmosphere collide with air molecules which impart friction to slow the object. But tiny objects may or may not collide with any given molecule. Rather than friction braking much of the braking is caused by electromagnetic forces. Total heat produced may or may not be proportionate but it is spread over a much greater area. Most viruses would experience little or no temperature change except the natural warming through conduction absorbing the sun's energy.

Life can exist inside of an object as well though most such objects would be more prone to disintegrate and burn up hitting the atmosphere.

 

[cladking]

Overall, transfer of life via meteor is very unlikely from outside of our solar system.

I might agree that it would seen so but observation would seem to suggest that it has already happened since there is no likely source of life from within our solar system and life certainly seems to be much older.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you are misthinking this.

On the very small scale and very long time frame everything is different. Chaos rules not the 'laws" of physics.

Large objects hitting the atmosphere collide with air molecules which impart friction to slow the object. But tiny objects may or may not collide with any given molecule. Rather than friction braking much of the braking is caused by electromagnetic forces. Total heat produced may or may not be proportionate but it is spread over a much greater area. Most viruses would experience little or no temperature change except the natural warming through conduction absorbing the sun's energy.

Life can exist inside of an object as well though most such objects would be more prone to disintegrate and burn up hitting the atmosphere.

What electromagnetic forces?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I might agree that it would seen so but observation would seem to suggest that it has already happened since there is no likely source of life from within our solar system and life certainly seems to be much older.

Natural abiogenesis would be a source of life. We do have evidence for it. Do you have evidence for anything else?

 

[Polymath257]

I might agree that it would seen so but observation would seem to suggest that it has already happened since there is no likely source of life from within our solar system and life certainly seems to be much older.

On the contrary, there are a number of quite reasonable proposals for life beginning on Earth. We know the raw materials were here, we know a variety of conducive conditions existed, we know that life was present early on, and we have yet to find any evidence of life anywhere else.

I'm not sure why you say it seems much older. The earliest evidence we have is for single celled life, which is to be expected.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does "just a belief" mean? Is there something more reliable than a belief?

Belief that the Earth's round, that germs cause disease and that grass is green are just beliefs, as well.

Well, traditionally knowledge is a justified true belief and if not that, it is just a belief, because the first 2 are missing.

 

[cladking]

On the contrary, there are a number of quite reasonable proposals for life beginning on Earth. We know the raw materials were here, we know a variety of conducive conditions existed, we know that life was present early on, and we have yet to find any evidence of life anywhere else.

I'm not sure why you say it seems much older. The earliest evidence we have is for single celled life, which is to be expected.

I have little doubt that life would have begun on earth given sufficient time but I believe that long before most planets are about ready for life to arise they instead are 'seeded" from outside. I believe life is ubiquitous.

The reason genes are so similar and there is so much unused DNA is that life on earth is far older than the earth itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have little doubt that life would have begun on earth given sufficient time but I believe that long before most planets are about ready for life to arise they instead are 'seeded" from outside. I believe life is ubiquitous.

The reason genes are so similar and there is so much unused DNA is that life on earth is far older than the earth itself.

That appears to be an irrational belief. Do you have any evidence for it?

 

[LIIA]

And this is just a "So what?" argument. It is refuted by those two words.

So, you acknowledged it. There is no argument. I stated a fact, you agreed. That’s it. You refuted nothing.

It has not "been failed to be accepted as a scientific theory"

Do you mean it was already accepted as a scientific theory, but that acceptance was never published?

It is still in the hypothetical stage.

Yes, the theory failed to move beyond the hypothetical stage in more than 100 years because the long research failed to lead to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution.

It has not been presented as a theory.

Don’t you think “accepted” is the word?

There are still some unanswered question

As if the majority of the questions have been answered?

They are well over half way to having a complete hypothesis

"halfway" per whom? Is that another exclusive unpublished secret of yours?
Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

it may graduate to theory

May or may not?

You are making an unreasonable demand

So, what is reasonable to you? Is it to make whatever claims you wish without any demonstration?

 

[LIIA]

There is no other way, except the ludicrous way of a God ordering things to come up:

This is a false dichotomy; your denial of God is not a proof of Abiogenisis.

Abiogenesis actually happened, because its results are here.

The results are here logically means, there must be a causal influence even if the cause/mechanism is not known, but unknown ≠ Abiogenisis.

The reason you reject God as the absolute causal influence is because you demand a coherent cause/mechanism to provide an acceptable explanation consistent with the naturalistic view but is that approach actually consistent with naturalism in its essence? Naturalism always demands a cause but does the naturalistic view dictate that the causal influence itself to be observable, of a known nature and with a coherent mechanism to explain its observed influence? You may think this is the case but it's not.

What you demand is never attainable for “fundamental questions”. Science neither provides that now nor will ever provide it.

Beyond speculation/wishful thinking do we know the following?

- Do we know a cause/ mechanism for the instantiation of the universe in reality?

- Do we know a cause/mechanism for the initiation of life?

- Do we know a cause/mechanism for how the dark energy exerts its influence (negative/repulsive pressure) on galaxies?

- Do we know a cause/mechanism for how the strong nuclear force exerts its influence on subatomic particles?

- Do we know a cause/ mechanism for how any natural force of any kind exerts its influence on matter?

- Do we know a cause/ mechanism for how/why the natural forces came to existence? do we know or understand its intrinsic nature?

You may think we know a mechanism, absolutely not. It's never a mechanism; it's always an observed influence. We always infer that the natural force in effect did it. We may observe and measure an influence but actual mechanism is never known.

The notion that “the natural force (such as dark energy) did it” doesn’t claim a mechanism, does it? It only claims an observed influence through unknown means that must exist. It’s never a mechanism; it’s always our logical inference of a causal influence that must exist which is merely followed by assigning a name to the unknown cause, but the name is neither an explanation nor a mechanism. It’s merely a name of an unknown.

Even if we don’t know the intrinsic nature of the cause/causal influence or we don’t know the mechanism through which the influence is exerted but we logically infer its existence because otherwise the observations would not be explainable. We do it all the time within the naturalistic view, we infer the presence of causes of totally unknown nature that can’t be understood or observed because we demand an explanation to the observations.

causes and effects are inseparable. The effect that can be observed demands the presence of the cause even if the cause can’t be observed or understood.

 

[We Never Know]

Just to followup, I consider it incredibly unlikely that life was brought to Earth on a meteor from outside of our solar system.

Think of it like this. Life would have to get going on some other planet (it could not have originated on the meteor itself).

Then, it would have had to survive whatever event made the meteor from the planet ( a huge explosion of some sort).

Then, it would have had to survive for at least tens of thousands of years (and that is only for the closest stars, more likely millions of years) in space at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This would have to be some sort of stasis.

Then it would have actually had to hit another planet (the Earth). Given the immensity of space, this is incredibly unlikely for something outside of our solar system.

Then it would have had to survive reentry into whatever atmosphere the Earth had at the time. The high temperatures of re-rentry would be an issue for something originally at 2.7K.

Then it would have had to find the environment on Earth conducive to re-emerging from stasis and surviving. In other words, the chemistry of Earth would have to match the chemistry of the organism.

Now, for travel from *within* our solar system, it is possible that the temperature doesn't get quite down to 2.7K and the likelihood of actually hitting Earth goes way, way up. But then you have the issue of abiogenesis on one of the known planets.

This should be compared to the fact that we *know* that life was present on Earth very quickly after it cooled enough to allow for liquid water, that the basic materials were here and that there were conditions that allowed for increasing complexity.

Also, be careful of the difference between *life* making such a journey and the basic chemicals of life doing so. Again, it is far more likely within the solar system, though.

So, based on everything we know, it is much, much more likely that life started here (Earth or, potentially Mars or Jupiter or one of the Jovian moons) that that it came from another star. And given what we know about the other planets in our system, Earth is, by far, the most likely place here.

But not impossible.

 

[LIIA]

And evidence showed that these organic compounds and molecules can exist naturally, or synthesize in lab experiments (eg Miller-Urey experiment, Jan Oró’s experiment).

For you to think there are no evidence only demonstrate your flawed reasoning and ignorance on the subject of Abiogenesis.

The Abiogenesis problem has multiple levels of complexity. The simple organic compounds/ Amino acids, the more complex organic molecules/the chemistry of abiotic nucleotide synthesis of RNA and DNA, then the complex functionalities/live processes of the assumed last universal common ancestor (LUCA) with the ability of self-sustenance/survival, lipids for cell membranes, metabolic functions and mechanisms of heredity reproduction.

Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions leading through these multiple levels and ending with the LUCA.

The claim that experiments showing that simple organic compounds/amino acids (Miller-Urey experiment) may emerge in nature are evidence for Abiogenesis is illogical (especially that recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment). It’s similar to a claim that the existence of a chemical element such as iron in a country is evidence that the country has car-manufacturing industry.

The fact is that neither the problem of chemistry of prebiotic nucleotide synthesis was resolved nor the evidence was ever sufficient, satisfactory or conclusive to support the idea that life may emerge from nonliving matter. None of the numerous attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution. See # 1850 & #2484.

 

[LIIA]

Creationism? -- just another kind of abiogenesis, but with neither a proposed mechanism nor evidence. It's a proposal of agency.

Both creationism and abiogenisis are equal in the sense that the mechanism is unknown (and may never be known).

But I don’t agree with the unevidenced assumption that first life form was exceedingly simple compared to simplest form of life known to science today (single-celled organism) and the unevidenced assumption that first life being simple can emerge spontaneously on its own from nonliving matter.

The necessary requirements of any living system are essentially the same and its never simple. Any living system of any kind must have vital functions/life processes to allow it to be alive, grow and reproduce. The claim for a much simpler first living system is nothing more than a wishful thinking/myth.

You prefer abiogenisis based on the hope that we would have explanation in the future, but such speculation is meaningless it may never happen.

The only fact is that an observed effect demands a causal influence (even if neither the nature of the cause nor the mechanism that exerts the influence is known).

The question here is, would the naturalistic view actually prohibit the acceptance of a causal influence of an unknown nature that exerts an influence through an unknown mechanism? It may seem like a radical claim, but the answer is no. Specifically at the fundamental level, it’s actually quite the opposite. It’s a fact that many cannot see/understand. We discussed that before. See #1854 & # 2573

To explain life, we must first understand life. We may think we do but we really don’t. Material doesn’t give rise to life or consciousness; reality is not limited to what can be physically sensed. There is no justification for such claim. See the article below it may shed some light on other aspects of life that are not known or understood, especially line of evidence #2 and #3.

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

As a posteriori view, Naturalism should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be. Science should be always open to new discoveries. Science should not be a commitment to a priori. We must follow the road where it leads. We cannot dictate what is at the end of the road before we get there.

 

[LIIA]

??????.
Are you seriously claiming >100 years of scientific research into abiogenesis? It's only recently we acquired the tools to research the mechanisms involved.

Absolutely, the Oparin-Haldane theory was in the 1920s, even the famous Miller-Urey experiment was in 1952. Darwin himself suggested earlier in the 19th century that life might have emerged in “warm little ponds”.

The claim for lack of research tools doesn’t change the fact that regardless of the long years of research, but till now there is no conclusive evidence of how life may have emerged on Earth from nonliving matter. None of the of the attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution.

In fact, one of the main concerns is that the new abiogenesis tools of research gave rise to the use of starting materials and controlled lab environments that were not available in nature or consistent with prebiotic conditions which call the relevance of the results into question.

the only reasonable assumption, inasmuch as life did appear on a lifeless planet.

There was no life, now there is life, so you logically demand a cause and infer that the cause for life is the interactions of existing lifeless matter. Can the interactions of the lifeless give rise to life? Can the interactions of the non-self-aware give rise to the self-aware? If you say yes, how can you support your claim other than wishful thinking?

How about there was nothing and the universe did appear, why don’t you logically demand a cause? You accept that the entire universe and life itself originated from nothing. Yet you do demand a cause for life, i.e., you demand the existing to be the cause for the contingent, isn’t it reasonable to infer an (ever-existing) absolute first cause for everything contingent in existence?

“Life appeared” means that we observed an effect that must have a cause. The cause is not known doesn’t equal abiogenesis is true.

Our best means to understand the cause is to understand the effect itself, if we don’t understand the effect, we can never understand the cause. We think we understand what life is, but we don’t.

You haven't looked into this, have you?
We've observed the components of a cell forming, all that remains is the assembly mechanism.

Not true, we did talk about that before, didn’t we? See # 1614

Again, you’re talking about experimentations in controlled lab conditions that utilizes starting materials that were not available in nature under prebiotic conditions. The results of such experimentations are irrelevant. Typically the set up of these experiments is not prebiotically realistic in terms of its concentrations, spatial-sequence separation and the availability of pure starting materials.

These are not my words. See the conclusion of the article below.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00546

What alternative mechanism do you propose?

God.

Do you acknowledge natural forces?

Do you understand that natural forces are merely names of unknown forces that exert influences (manifested in the observable realm) through unknown mechanisms?

Do you understand that we don’t know what it is, its intrinsic nature, why/how it exists and how it does what it does? Yet the observed effects demand the existence of these unknown causal influences. How the understanding of God is different?

Dark energy that acts between galaxies or the strong nuclear force that act between subatomic particles are only names of unknowns. The names may give you the illusion of knowledge but as I said before, we don’t know its intrinsic nature, why/how it exists and how it does what it does? Or how/why the influence of each force is calibrated to a specific value? All what we can do, is merely assign a name to it, that’s it. We can never neither understand it’s intrinsic nature nor the mechanism through which it influences matter. We don’t know any mechanisms; we only observe existing influences. The manifestations in observations (effects) are the only reasons why we infer the causes even if the causes itself are beyond any possible observation or understanding.

This is exactly the same case with the understanding of God. The only difference is that God is not an individual cause for an individual effect; God is the absolute cause for every contingent entity in existence (including the natural forces itself).

 

[LIIA]

Naturally created. Created by intentionless,

What is the basis for the claim that the creation process is intentionless? How can you tell? Is that because we cannot see evidence of purpose, design and functional structures of extreme complexity that absolutely dwarfs the most sophisticated structures ever designed/built by man?

 

[LIIA]

So, based on everything we know, it is much, much more likely that life started here (Earth or, potentially Mars or Jupiter or one of the Jovian moons) that that it came from another star. And given what we know about the other planets in our system, Earth is, by far, the most likely place here.

Due to the lack of conclusive evidence of how life may have emerged from nonliving matter on Earth, the alternative was proposed that life may have been introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms.

I agree that such claim is not an answer; it would be a fallacious shift of the unresolved problem to other places where conditions might be much less suitable or even impossible to accommodate life. It’s some sort of an illogical “infinite regress” approach to keep shifting the problem back to another time/space infinitely and the original question remains unanswered.

The fact is that there is no known explanation/or mechanism. abiogenesis is not a mechanism, it’s just a name we use to refer to an unknown process that was taken as an axiom. Many would confuse the name itself for an actual mechanism. The mechanism is yet to be known and may never be known.

The same is true for “singularity”, it’s merely a name to identify an unknown and similarly the name itself may be confused for actual knowledge, which is not true.

The absolute initiation of any system (the universe or life) is beyond science. Science may observe/experiment from within an existing system but beyond the point when the system itself ceases to exist, there is nothing to observe, test or experiment with. It’s a threshold beyond which science stops providing answers.

 

[cladking]

Due to the lack of conclusive evidence of how life may have emerged from nonliving matter on Earth, the alternative was proposed that life may have been introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms.

I agree that such claim is not an answer; it would be a fallacious shift of the unresolved problem to other places where conditions might be much less suitable or even impossible to accommodate life. It’s some sort of an illogical “infinite regress” approach to keep shifting the problem back to another time/space infinitely and the original question remains unanswered.

I don't disagree but the beauty of the idea beyond simply explaining the vast complexity of even the simplest organisms is that it assumes life is as ubiquitous in space as it is on earth.

If you're right that life is highly improbable to arise from chemicals then being seeded from the outside means there could be millions or billions of planets with life from one single source.

I believe to a large extent talking about "life" is very much missing the point anyway. Life without consciousness probably isn't even really possible because a collection of chemicals and cells would not learn how to stay alive or reproduce. Rather we are talking about "consciousness" and the coding of consciousness. Yet we don't even understand the nature of consciousness or where to find it.

I know nothing. I believe that ancient people were in touch with consciousness itself because their language and brains were formatted differently. I believe that they employed a natural science based on observation and this formatting in order to learn about reality. I believe that their knowledge was mostly lost but survives in fragments in myth, religion, and other places. It makes perfect sense to me that there could be an Ultimate Causation and this expressed itself through consciousness. Who knows. I do know that we do not. It makes perfect sense to me that if these things are true then experiment, theory, and history would be exactly as we see it. For this reason I believe that all life is individual and is conscious and it is ubiquitous. There are collectors we put in space for germs and so far nothing has turned up but they haven't been there very long either. In time we might find the earth is bombarded with several "germs" every single day. Each with the potential of growing and changing into conscious life if it lands in the right place.